PDA

View Full Version : Rich wants to go back to San Fran?



reds44
10-09-2006, 05:47 PM
Rich Aurilia, who can become a free agent if he declines his half of a mutual option, said he has some interest in returning to San Francisco.

The two sides talked last year before Aurilia ended up re-signing with the Reds. "The Giants are definitely on my list," Aurilia said. "It's something definitely on my mind. I hope there would be interest. I'm curious to see who they will bring on to manage the team." The Reds will likely try to keep Aurilia, but he figures to want more than the $2 million he's currently set to make.

-rotoworld

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2006/10/08/SPGATLL5DR1.DTL

RedLegSuperStar
10-09-2006, 05:51 PM
Let him walk..

NJReds
10-09-2006, 05:51 PM
I guess the Giants are looking to add some youth to their roster.

Reds4Life
10-09-2006, 05:53 PM
Krivsky said last night the Reds are going to exercise their end of the option. I just hope he isn't dumb enough to get into a bidding war over Rich. Overpaying for a 35 year old infielder isn't very smart. If he wants to go back to San Fran, let him and use the cash elsewhere.

pedro
10-09-2006, 05:56 PM
San Francisco is a nice place to be rich. Or so I would assume, not being rich myself.

GAC
10-09-2006, 05:57 PM
Krivsky said last night the Reds are going to exercise their end of the option. I just hope he isn't dumb enough to get into a bidding war over Rich. Overpaying for a 35 year old infielder isn't very smart. If he wants to go back to San Fran, let him and use the cash elsewhere.

Yep. Rich is throwing that out there as a bargaining chip in negotiations.

Don't fall for it Wayne-O. ;)

Heath
10-09-2006, 06:02 PM
:wave: to Rich.

El Bargainingo Chipo

Thanks Rich, see you next year when the .OPS dips below career levels and more towards age & range factors.

Edskin
10-09-2006, 06:28 PM
If RA is on the roster next year, I will take it as a sign that Krivsky hasn't learned a darned thing.

Ga_Red
10-09-2006, 06:35 PM
02/08/07

Kc61
10-09-2006, 06:36 PM
If RA is on the roster next year, I will take it as a sign that Krivsky hasn't learned a darned thing.


I guess I don't understand this. RA led the team (other than Ross, who had fewer at bats) in slugging percentage and OPS and had a .300 batting average. He lacks range, as do most guys in his age bracket, but clearly can play a number of infield positions decently.

I wouldn't pay him a fortune. But I can't see why it is so terrible if he plays for the Reds next year.

RFS62
10-09-2006, 06:36 PM
The Reds losing RA for 2007 is a step in the wrong direction. While not devastating, it is one that will have to be retraced just to stay even, a much bigger one if AD goes for pitching and KGJ can't play 140 games.



Depends on how much he'll end up costing, but in general, I agree.

redsfan30
10-09-2006, 07:10 PM
I guess I don't understand this. RA led the team (other than Ross, who had fewer at bats) in slugging percentage and OPS and had a .300 batting average. He lacks range, as do most guys in his age bracket, but clearly can play a number of infield positions decently.

I wouldn't pay him a fortune. But I can't see why it is so terrible if he plays for the Reds next year.

Exactly.

Falls City Beer
10-09-2006, 07:31 PM
San Fran's park destroys RH hitters. But then, Rich is looking to just play out the string, not put up numbers to take him to the next contract.

RBA
10-09-2006, 07:36 PM
Rich, say it ain't so. San Diego is place to be. ;)

Unassisted
10-09-2006, 10:34 PM
If RA is on the roster next year, I will take it as a sign that Krivsky hasn't learned a darned thing.Krivsky already indicated that the club intends to exercise its part of RA's mutual option. Does that in itself qualify Krivsky for your dunce cap?

Heath
10-09-2006, 11:49 PM
Krivsky already indicated that the club intends to exercise its part of RA's mutual option. Does that in itself qualify Krivsky for your dunce cap?

That's the 50-50 question - is 2 Million too much for RA?

The other part (which to me would qualify WayneK sitting in the corner) would be RA's popping off to get 3 to 5 million/yr from the Reds who don't need to spend that for a guy destined for a huge backslide.

Sure, he ought to be fresh for hitting. He barely breaks a sweat going after balls in his limited range.

alloverjr
10-10-2006, 12:17 AM
I guess I don't understand this. RA led the team (other than Ross, who had fewer at bats) in slugging percentage and OPS and had a .300 batting average. He lacks range, as do most guys in his age bracket, but clearly can play a number of infield positions decently.

I wouldn't pay him a fortune. But I can't see why it is so terrible if he plays for the Reds next year.

I think the biggest issue with RA on the team for next year is that he probably doesn't come back to platoon or back up anyone. He wants to play everyday. Most people in these parts would like to see a SS/2B signed with some offense and range, pretty much taking Rich out of the picture. Can't believe Hat sits the bench next year either.

BrooklynRedz
10-10-2006, 12:43 AM
In the accompanying graphics to today's NY Post ARod piece they mentioned Rich as a possible target in a list including Ramirez and Beltre.

wolfboy
10-10-2006, 01:58 AM
I guess I don't understand this. RA led the team (other than Ross, who had fewer at bats) in slugging percentage and OPS and had a .300 batting average. He lacks range, as do most guys in his age bracket, but clearly can play a number of infield positions decently.

I wouldn't pay him a fortune. But I can't see why it is so terrible if he plays for the Reds next year.

At his age, I wouldn't expect him to repeat those numbers. Then again, I wouldn't expect Hatteberg to come close to the numbers he had this year. Given the choice between Hatteberg and Aurilia, I'd probably rather have Aurilia. Of course, we already have Hatteberg signed.

GAC
10-10-2006, 07:15 AM
That's the 50-50 question - is 2 Million too much for RA?

IMHO, and seeing his production in a Red's uni, No.

Some keep saying he will regress. They said that last year too. ;)

But if a player performs and/or does well, does he deserve to be rewarded and given a raise?

I think any of us would say yes.

So I don't think it is wrong for RA, based on his performance, to ask for a raise. Generally speaking, we all expect the same treatment in our jobs in the so-called private sector.

He made 1.3 Mil in '06, and the mutual option calls for 2 Mil in '07. That's a nice raise IMO.

But I'd go as high as 2.5 Mil for another year, and leave it at that. But no higher. Let someone else get in a bidding war over him.

But unless he is given an assurance of where he will play in '07 position-wise with the Reds, because he is not gonna sit the bench in a utility role and I don't blame him, then I'd consider walking.

And there isn't any one of us who wouldn't do the same thing this guy is doing if we were in his shoes. ;)

I say he ends up a Cardinal! :lol:

Heath
10-10-2006, 09:48 AM
In the accompanying graphics to today's NY Post ARod piece they mentioned Rich as a possible target in a list including Ramirez and Beltre.

There's the proverbial nail in the coffin. New Yorker goes home.

Edskin
10-10-2006, 10:32 AM
RA takes up a roster spot for a potentially younger player. Nothing worse than teams that win 80 games with old players. RA was pretty good last year. He MIGHT be pretty good next year. But IMO, he does NOTHING for this team. I'd much rather find a younger guy (even if it costs us a few wins).

This team is MILES away from contention. I really don't want anyone over 35 playing significant games next year.

GAC
10-10-2006, 11:44 AM
But IMO, he does NOTHING for this team.

Extraordinary statement Ed after witnessing what he did contribute to this team this year. He does nothing for this team? How do you justify this statement?


I'd much rather find a younger guy (even if it costs us a few wins).

We can't afford to give away any more wins. ;)

And I certainly don't want a youth movement just for the sake of youth. And especially at the expense of sacrificing (costing) us wins.


This team is MILES away from contention. I really don't want anyone over 35 playing significant games next year.

There are still an awful lot of ballplayers, 35 and older, who are putting up the performance and making contributions to their teams.

Our "lack" in contending is still in one area....P-I-T-C-H-I-N-G. And not so much an issue of age, but one of talent.

Our "collapse" in the late season came just as much from our "youth" (Dunn, Freel, Encarnacion, BP) tailing off badly, as much it was the old foggies. Maybe even more. ;)

membengal
10-10-2006, 12:58 PM
At some point, RA will regress, and you don't want to be holding the bag at $3 million or so (whatever it will take to get him) when he does.

Kc61
10-10-2006, 02:18 PM
Every spot on the roster doesn't have to go to a young prospect.

There is room on every team for a few experienced players, somewhat past their peak, who are still able to contribute. You need a mixture of younger players, those in their prime, and some very experienced guys who have been through the wars.

At $2 million or even $3 million, Aurilia provides more than good value. Given his performance last season, he is a good bet to contribute again. If he doesn't, if he "regresses," that's unfortunate but nobody has a crystal ball and nobody can be sure of next year's performance.

I dare say that unproven guys such as Chris Denorfia -- a player I like, by the way -- are far more risky than Rich Aurilia. At least RA has a major league track record. You need guys like that too.

Edskin
10-10-2006, 02:24 PM
GAC-- I want Dunn and Arroyo shipped out as well. I want a total, 100% top-to-bottom overhaul. I am fine with a 65 win season next year if we can finally turn the tide within the organization. I see no place in that plan for RA.

Kc61
10-10-2006, 02:42 PM
GAC-- I want Dunn and Arroyo shipped out as well. I want a total, 100% top-to-bottom overhaul. I am fine with a 65 win season next year if we can finally turn the tide within the organization. I see no place in that plan for RA.

Even under that scenario -- the rebuild scenario -- you might consider Aurilia and a couple of other inexpensive veterans. With a rebuild, you don't keep any big contracts. All the $5 million or more people would go.

But you might keep Aurilia, Hatteberg, maybe Freel. You need a few relatively inexpensive guys who have played before.

westofyou
10-10-2006, 02:51 PM
I am fine with a 65 win season next year if we can finally turn the tide within the organization.

That will never sell tickets in Cincinati though, and since most of us sit far away from the place where all those empty seats will be it's kind of hard to tell the new guy to shoot for the stars through a gun that will fire a .400 winning percentage.

If you want some of this have at it, I want no part of it, nor do the fans that are the ones who enable the franchise to generate revenue. I believe Five year plans, just lead to more five year plans.



WINNING PERCENTAGE YEAR PCT W L
1 Reds 1934 .344 52 99
2 Reds 1937 .364 56 98
3 Reds 1901 .374 52 87
4 Reds 1982 .377 61 101
5 Reds 1931 .377 58 96
6 Reds 1933 .382 58 94
7 Reds 1930 .383 59 95
T8 Reds 1914 .390 60 94
T8 Reds 1932 .390 60 94
10 Reds 1916 .392 60 93
11 Reds 1945 .396 61 93
12 Reds 1949 .403 62 92
13 Reds 2001 .407 66 96

Falls City Beer
10-10-2006, 03:18 PM
I believe Five year plans, just lead to more five year plans.




Yep. They are code for "acceptable" failure.

RANDY IN INDY
10-10-2006, 07:46 PM
Agreed.

RFS62
10-10-2006, 07:49 PM
Yep. They are code for "acceptable" failure.



Yep. I think Castellini understands this. That gives me more hope than anything.

Aronchis
10-10-2006, 08:01 PM
Yep. They are code for "acceptable" failure.

or they lead to acceptable success. No such thing as a 5 year plan. But there is a thing called rebuilding, something the Reds ought to try.

OldRightHander
10-10-2006, 08:10 PM
Just ask Detroit fans if it takes five years to turn a team around.